A Bigfoot Massacre? Bloody Nonsense!

John Green is a hero in the Bigfoot research community – and rightly so. As a young Canadian newsman he took time to come to the Klamath River Valley to explore early Bluff Creek Bigfoot footprints, and the Patterson-Gimlin film site. You can read his entire account of events including his part in them in his seminal work, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. Therefore the idea that he could be involved in a Bigfoot massacre cover-up strikes me as being contrived.
Also implicated are Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, Bigfoot film legends. It is a miracle that they saw Patty and now someone accuses them of helping to kill her and her family. What a terrible accusation! And it simply isn’t believable. Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek on October 20, 1967 for the filming of Patty. John Green wasn’t on the scene until June 1968 (see page 123 of his book.) [Update, 8/27/09: According to a more recent post on Cryptomundo, the footage of John Green was from late August/early September 1967, filmed by Rene Dahinden.] How could they all have participated in a Bigfoot massacre together? It doesn’t make sense and to accuse them is like attacking the holy icons of the Bigfoot research community. You can’t do that without repercussions.

I read what Loren Coleman posted about this on Cryptomundo yesterday morning – Bigfoot Massacre Theorist, John Green & Coverup – and my first impression was that the YouTube video referenced showed an inaccurate photoshopped image of a man with red hands. I tried to replicate the process with a screen capture from the original film in the video. I lightened, saturated, and adjusted the ‘before’ image of the scene and couldn’t find any red on the man’s hands. I also noted that the red hand version in the YouTube video also featured blurred faces on two of the men in the picture – another clear indication that major photoshopping took place. The man looks tanned, not bloody. I hope nobody falls for this theory, which looks inaccurate to me – and that’s saying it nicely.

My main point in responding to this is just to say that I live here in the Klamath River Valley (of which Bluff Creek is a part) and want to point out that the Patterson-Gimlin film took place in October when we’ve got a lot of red in Autumn foilage. The poison oak turns bright red at that time of year. We’ve also got dark red bark falling off the Madrone trees, and a lot of the soil here is red which could account for what MK Davis seems to think is a bloody dog paw print.

This is the original picture from the film, which I screen captured from the YouTube video before it was removed by whoever posted it there.

This is my lightened version showing no blood on the extended hand of the man on the right.

This is my lightened version with increased contrast showing no blood. Note that the red truck in the background is bright red, but not the man’s hand.

This is what appears to be a photoshopped version from the YouTube video showing blurred faces and a bloody hand.

The section of this photo said to be skin and blood could just as easily be a backpack frame style popular back in the sixties. I had one very similar to that at the time. Or it could be something else. And the red part could have been photoshopped in just like the red-hand photo above appears to be heavily photoshopped.

Loren Coleman wrote a follow-up blog posting this morning with responses from John Green – which is where I got this photo. John Green said Bob Titmus wasn’t there and that the rifles were there to protect the dog at the dog owner’s insistence.

To anyone taking this massacre theory seriously – please go dig up the bones of these massacre victims to prove your allegations, and quit relying on poor quality old amateur films. When you produce impressive evidence, people may take this seriously, but not before. In the meantime, what seems to be an attack harming the reputations of our heroes (Patterson, Gimlin, Green, Titmus, and whoever else was implicated) is upsetting a lot of people.

I am amused at the thought of you on your hands and knees digging in one of our local gravel bars. As a person who has done a bit of digging around here (during prospecting) I can say it isn’t likely you’ll have much fun doing this, but if the theory is that believable to you, why not? Finding Bigfoot bones would be something like finding buried treasure.

Comments

I believe that Bigfoot is real because I know what Bigfoot really is. Half man and half gorilla.
If you don’t believe that humans and primates can reproduce with each other, then watch this video.
Humanzee’s in America.

This is interesting, I had heard of it some time ago. I just don’t buy it. If there were bodies buried there someone would have looked by now to discover the bones of the creatures in order to become rich and famous.

I never understood Davis’ assessment that the first scene of the film you can see “Patty” standing up from a crouched down position standing over a pool of blood. I believe it was also him who says you can see a bullet hitting Patty. He did AMAZING enhancements but really, what film is he looking at lol??

Linda Jo Martin is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.Com.